Jesse K Kelley, Edward R Hagen, Brooke Gurland, Andrew RL Stevenson, James W Ogilvie
{"title":"直肠脱垂手术的国际差异","authors":"Jesse K Kelley, Edward R Hagen, Brooke Gurland, Andrew RL Stevenson, James W Ogilvie","doi":"10.1136/bmjsit-2023-000198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal approach for patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse. The aim of this international survey was to assess the patterns in treatment of rectal prolapse. Design A 23-question survey was distributed to the Pelvic Floor Consortium of the American Society of Colorectal Surgeons, the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Pelvic Floor Society. Questions pertained to surgeon and practice demographics, preoperative evaluation, procedural preferences, and educational needs. Setting Electronic survey distributed to colorectal surgeons of diverse practice settings Participants 249 colorectal surgeons responded to the survey, 65% of which were male. There was wide variability in age, years in practice, and practice setting. Main outcome measures Responses to questions regarding preoperative workup preferences and clinical scenarios. Results In preoperative evaluation, 19% would perform anorectal physiology testing and 70% would evaluate for concomitant pelvic organ prolapse. In a healthy patient, 90% would perform a minimally invasive abdominal approach, including ventral rectopexy (56%), suture rectopexy (31%), mesh rectopexy (6%) and resection rectopexy (5%). In terms of ventral rectopexy, surgeons in the Americas preferred a synthetic mesh (61.9% vs 38.1%, p=0.59) whereas surgeons from Australasia preferred biologic grafts (75% vs 25%, p<0.01). In an older patient with comorbidities 81% would perform a perineal approach. Procedure preference (Delormes vs Altmeier) varied according to location (Australasia, 85.9% vs 14.1%; Europe, 75.3% vs 24.7%; Americas, 14.1% vs 85.9%). Most participants were interested in education regarding surgical approaches, however there is wide variability in preferred methods. Conclusion There is significant variability in the preoperative evaluation and surgery performed for rectal prolapse. Given the lack of consensus, it is not surprising that most surgeons desire further education on the topic.","PeriodicalId":33349,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Surgery Interventions Health Technologies","volume":"30 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The international variability of surgery for rectal prolapse\",\"authors\":\"Jesse K Kelley, Edward R Hagen, Brooke Gurland, Andrew RL Stevenson, James W Ogilvie\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjsit-2023-000198\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal approach for patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse. The aim of this international survey was to assess the patterns in treatment of rectal prolapse. Design A 23-question survey was distributed to the Pelvic Floor Consortium of the American Society of Colorectal Surgeons, the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Pelvic Floor Society. Questions pertained to surgeon and practice demographics, preoperative evaluation, procedural preferences, and educational needs. Setting Electronic survey distributed to colorectal surgeons of diverse practice settings Participants 249 colorectal surgeons responded to the survey, 65% of which were male. There was wide variability in age, years in practice, and practice setting. Main outcome measures Responses to questions regarding preoperative workup preferences and clinical scenarios. Results In preoperative evaluation, 19% would perform anorectal physiology testing and 70% would evaluate for concomitant pelvic organ prolapse. In a healthy patient, 90% would perform a minimally invasive abdominal approach, including ventral rectopexy (56%), suture rectopexy (31%), mesh rectopexy (6%) and resection rectopexy (5%). In terms of ventral rectopexy, surgeons in the Americas preferred a synthetic mesh (61.9% vs 38.1%, p=0.59) whereas surgeons from Australasia preferred biologic grafts (75% vs 25%, p<0.01). In an older patient with comorbidities 81% would perform a perineal approach. Procedure preference (Delormes vs Altmeier) varied according to location (Australasia, 85.9% vs 14.1%; Europe, 75.3% vs 24.7%; Americas, 14.1% vs 85.9%). Most participants were interested in education regarding surgical approaches, however there is wide variability in preferred methods. Conclusion There is significant variability in the preoperative evaluation and surgery performed for rectal prolapse. Given the lack of consensus, it is not surprising that most surgeons desire further education on the topic.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33349,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Surgery Interventions Health Technologies\",\"volume\":\"30 5\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Surgery Interventions Health Technologies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsit-2023-000198\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Surgery Interventions Health Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsit-2023-000198","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的对全层直肠脱垂患者的最佳入路缺乏共识。这项国际调查的目的是评估治疗直肠脱垂的模式。设计一项包含23个问题的调查被分发给美国结直肠外科学会盆底协会、澳大利亚和新西兰结直肠外科学会以及盆底学会。问题涉及外科医生和执业人口统计学、术前评估、手术偏好和教育需求。电子调查分发给不同执业背景的结直肠外科医生,共有249名结直肠外科医生参与了调查,其中65%为男性。在年龄、实践年限和实践环境方面存在很大的差异。主要结果测量对术前随访偏好和临床情况的回答。结果术前评估中,19%的人会进行肛门直肠生理检查,70%的人会进行盆腔器官脱垂的评估。在健康患者中,90%的人会采用微创腹部入路,包括腹侧直肠固定术(56%)、缝合直肠固定术(31%)、网状直肠固定术(6%)和切除直肠固定术(5%)。就腹侧直肠固定术而言,美洲的外科医生更倾向于使用合成补片(61.9% vs 38.1%, p=0.59),而澳大利亚的外科医生更倾向于使用生物移植物(75% vs 25%, p= 0.01)。在有合并症的老年患者中,81%的患者会采用会阴入路。手术偏好(Delormes vs Altmeier)因地区而异(澳大利亚,85.9% vs 14.1%;欧洲:75.3% vs 24.7%;美洲,14.1% vs 85.9%)。大多数参与者对手术入路的教育感兴趣,然而在首选方法上存在很大的差异。结论直肠脱垂的术前评价和手术方式存在显著差异。鉴于缺乏共识,大多数外科医生希望在这个话题上进行进一步的教育也就不足为奇了。
The international variability of surgery for rectal prolapse
Objective There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal approach for patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse. The aim of this international survey was to assess the patterns in treatment of rectal prolapse. Design A 23-question survey was distributed to the Pelvic Floor Consortium of the American Society of Colorectal Surgeons, the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Pelvic Floor Society. Questions pertained to surgeon and practice demographics, preoperative evaluation, procedural preferences, and educational needs. Setting Electronic survey distributed to colorectal surgeons of diverse practice settings Participants 249 colorectal surgeons responded to the survey, 65% of which were male. There was wide variability in age, years in practice, and practice setting. Main outcome measures Responses to questions regarding preoperative workup preferences and clinical scenarios. Results In preoperative evaluation, 19% would perform anorectal physiology testing and 70% would evaluate for concomitant pelvic organ prolapse. In a healthy patient, 90% would perform a minimally invasive abdominal approach, including ventral rectopexy (56%), suture rectopexy (31%), mesh rectopexy (6%) and resection rectopexy (5%). In terms of ventral rectopexy, surgeons in the Americas preferred a synthetic mesh (61.9% vs 38.1%, p=0.59) whereas surgeons from Australasia preferred biologic grafts (75% vs 25%, p<0.01). In an older patient with comorbidities 81% would perform a perineal approach. Procedure preference (Delormes vs Altmeier) varied according to location (Australasia, 85.9% vs 14.1%; Europe, 75.3% vs 24.7%; Americas, 14.1% vs 85.9%). Most participants were interested in education regarding surgical approaches, however there is wide variability in preferred methods. Conclusion There is significant variability in the preoperative evaluation and surgery performed for rectal prolapse. Given the lack of consensus, it is not surprising that most surgeons desire further education on the topic.